[Prime Minister] Cameron told MPs on 6 July: "Our reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law – indeed, much of what the services exist to protect – risks being tarnished."

A Conservative who prizes human rights, justice, fairness, and the rule of law -- how can we get some of those over here?

Apparently waterboarding was nothing -- the US outsourced torture:

Binyam Mohamed

Seized in Pakistan in April 2002, Binyam was rendered to Morocco three months later, where he was tortured on behalf of the US for 18 months, in sessions that regularly included having his genitals cut with a razor, and was then held for nine months in Afghanistan, first at the “Dark Prison,” a secret prison run by the CIA, where he was also tortured, and then at Bagram airbase. He has been held at Guantánamo since September 2004.

Talk about "don't touch my junk." At least the TSA hasn't been using razors.

Tories are afraid of a political show that makes them look like war criminals. British public is very stupid. Much of the populace want to try Bush and Blair for war crimes... cause they're like Saddam Hussein's equals or something.

So I was casually watching Casino Royale last night, at the scene where Vesper tells Bond that if he loses, 'the British government will have directly financed terrorism.'I guess the real gov decided to skip over the chance of winning and go right to the financing.

Since they have been unable to work at their normal jobs for eight years and were subject to TSA style torture, I'm ok with tripling their former salary times eight Let's see that's about .... $12,000.

See... this sort of slap-in-the-face is what you get when you release anyone from Guantanamo.

We need to stop allowing people suspected of terrorism to embarrass or otherwise confront the U.S. government! We. Must. Stop. Releasing. People.

The only sensible way to do that is to kill them. Don't release anybody. If you are suspected of terrorism, or of somehow being related to a terrorist plot, you are picked up, tortured, and then killed. All in total secrecy. Nobody ever knows what happened to you.

There's an easy solution, one that the Obama administration has already adopted: No more prisoners. Just drop a laser-guided bomb on the suspect's hut instead.

No, no... "hut" makes it seem like the suspects are abroad in some third-world backwater country. The real terrorists are here-- among us.

Like John Tyner, that dude who refused the TSA groping in San Diego this past weekend. If the government had its shit together, they wouldn't just go after him for a $11k fine, but they'd abduct him and send him to Gitmo and torture a confession out of him that it was all a set-up and then broadcast that confession on YouTube. Those would be the last words John Tyner says, 'cuz he would then have his penis and testicles cut off and left to bleed to death in a fitting retribution for embarrassing our government.

Anything less than this and you are supporting the terrorists.

If this sort of treatment were dished out to these dudes, they wouldn't be around to demand compensation from the British government, and moreover neither the Brits nor the U.S. would have to deal with the publicity about it.

A Conservative who prizes human rights, justice, fairness, and the rule of law -- how can we get some of those over here?

I realize you're just trying to bait the local pro-American commenters here, but that's still a pretty silly thing to say. The article notes that the Tory government is paying out the money to avoid a trial. There's no admission of wrongdoing, and human rights campaigners are angry that there won't be a trial now.

If you really believed the British had done something wrong, you'd be outraged by this. The "guilty" British officials are having their "crimes" covered up, and are buying the silence of their critics.

I realize you're just trying to bait the local pro-American commenters here, but that's still a pretty silly thing to say. The article notes that the Tory government is paying out the money to avoid a trial. There's no admission of wrongdoing, and human rights campaigners are angry that there won't be a trial now.

If you really believed the British had done something wrong, you'd be outraged by this. The "guilty" British officials are having their "crimes" covered up, and are buying the silence of their critics.

The British should have taken the bastards out into the back yard, tied them to a post and shot them.

I agree with you that the killing of Muslim babies is a good thing. Shouldn't Obama start killing Muslim babies here in America too? Maybe the TSA blueshirts can go around to the hospitals and day-care centers and start gathering them up?

But as for waterboarding... why is it that the public even knows about it? Waterboarding should be followed by a bullet to the brain once the information we want is obtained. If you let people who have been waterboarded live to tell about it, or to inform others that it is being done, then you create a security risk.

I agree with you that the killing of Muslim babies is a good thing. Shouldn't Obama start killing Muslim babies here in America too?

Good idea...we could just call them really late-term abortions. Make them mandatory up to the 30th trimester or so. And even though it's mandatory, it's also abortion so you could still describe it as pro-choice. The feminists would love it. Finally, if you aborted all the Muslims now, it would guarantee that none of them would ever be tortured at Gitmo. The human rights campaigners could really get behind that.

Seems like a winner...maybe you could suggest it to Biden next time he stops by your porn site.

You must be a part time advisor to the Obama administration. It appears your advice has won the day.

The Brits will be responsible for their national security. They have a greater internal threats than we do. I won't begrudge them their legal decision.

But your snark is now misguided. The present administration can set the tone it wants. It apparently has decided that Gitmo should stay open, that targeting suspected terrorists and killing them via drone attack is a good option (even with "collateral damage") and, if rumor is true, civil trials for big catches are not a good idea.

I know it may be comforting to say:

Well the Bush admin... but now two years out, that seems like a silly response. (And I acknowledge to didn't mention Bush)

I believe the Obama administration was sincere in changing direction in the GWOT. That they have moderated those plans indicate to me that they see more value in the "old" way than originally thought.

Silly for reasons that would have been obvious if you had read (a) the article and (b) the remainder of my post, before asking that question.

Ah. I will explain it to you.

Since February, calls have come from across the political spectrum to investigate if the Brits participated in torture, particularly by making use of data that America obtained through torture. Not waterboarding in Gitmo, but torture -- like taking a scalpel to a suspect's genitals -- carried out in third-party countries.

In July, Cameron announced that, to maintain the UK's reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law, a "judge-led" inquiry would take place. The inquiry would be "transparent" but not wholly in public.

Two problems quickly manifested. First, any evidence of torture would prove the detainees's cases, thus discouraging a free and full inquiry. Second, there were just too goddamn many documents for MI5 and MI6 to review in any reasonable time.

So, buyig off the detainees was seen as a necessary prerequisite for the judge-led inquiry.

The present administration ... apparently has decided that Gitmo should stay open

They have to be somewhere, and the GOPsters wouldn't let Obama bring them here. Another instance of Obama caving to the fearful Republicans, as if the detainees possessed radioactive powers. December 16, 2009:

Republicans lined up to criticize the Obama administration Tuesday over its decision to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a prison in Illinois, accusing President Obama of increasing the threat to America's security by making the U.S. home to suspected terrorists.

...A host of Republican lawmakers were quick to denounce the move, saying the transfer to U.S. soil will give terrorists constitutional rights and could pose a grave threat to the state's security.

"The American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress have already rejected bringing terrorists to U.S. soil for long-term detention, and current law prohibits it," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. "The administration has failed to explain how transferring terrorists to Gitmo North will make Americans safer than keeping these terrorists off of our shores in the secure facility in Cuba."

"This decision changes nothing but geography," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking member of House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "The Obama administration is naive if they really think that simply changing the location of Gitmo will improve our relations with terrorists. Bringing Gitmo detainees to the U.S. gives terrorists access to additional constitutional rights. These new rights may help terrorists avoid conviction and even file civil suits against American officials."

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, blasted the move as "preposterous" and said the administration will look to "paint this as jobs plan while making Americans less safe."

"We've had votes in Congress that made it clear we want to keep terrorists out of America," Boehner said on the House floor Tuesday. "I can tell you I won't vote to spend one dime to move prisoners to the U.S."

I agree with you that the killing of Muslim babies is a good thing. Shouldn't Obama start killing Muslim babies here in America too? Maybe the TSA blueshirts can go around to the hospitals and day-care centers and start gathering them up?

=================I think you are on the edge of the European Dilemma, where in the name of tolerance they brought in a slew of Islamoids that don't assimilate and are intolerant of native Europeans.In the past, the only ways to deal with a dangerous subversive minority is to kill or ethnically cleanse them. The latter is more common - as the Czechs did with the German population there that supported Hitler when the war ended, the Chinese and Koreans and Taiwanese and Filipinos and remote Pac Islanders did with Jap colonists long settled there, as the Zionists did halfway with native Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

Unless the Islamoids wake up and cease threatening the majoity culture with aggression - both physical and acts of intimidation - you may one day not exactly see little baby Islamoids killed - but packed on deportation ships back to Camel Land - as the West admits that "diversity and MultiKulti didn't work out" At least in regards to Islamoids and perhaps some African populations. But assimilation and peaceful contribution to society DID work out acceptably where Latin, Indian Hindi, East Asian immigration was concerned.

So, buyig off the detainees was seen as a necessary prerequisite for the judge-led inquiry.

The government of the UK is giving millions of pounds to people they themselves accuse of being dangerous, anti-British terrorists, despite being under no legal obligation to do so. And that, my dear little law school dropout, is why I pointed out that you are "silly" for wishing America did things that way. There's no scenario under which this represents a good outcome. Indeed, the second article you linked sums it up quite nicely:

terror suspects who were allegedly tortured at the behest of the United States are being paid millions of pounds from the taxpayer in return for their silence over British involvement.

So...

1. suspected terrorists2. are being given $millions3. to protect the British government

Your response is to wish we did things that way over here. Very silly indeed. :)

Like Obama, the Conservatives are idealists forced to clean up a mess their predecessors left them.

While opting to finance terrorists rather than defend his country in court *does* sort of sound like something Obama might do -- or at least something Rush Limbaugh would think Obama might do -- I'm surprised to hear you admit as much.

Oddly enough, though, Obama has opted to continue Bush's policies instead of cutting a check to al Qaeda. Maybe he's not as "idealistic" as the Brits.

Human rights for all humans, regardless of who they are. Human rights are not a quid pro quo.

Besides, why assume these men were guilty of anything? Most of those dumped in Guantanamo were and are not, as even our military admitted, hence the release of most of them, including these men.

If you were accused of terrorism without any evidence and held for years in a prison camp and tortured or deprived of legal rights, wouldn't you consider financial compensationg the least that was due you?

Part of the problem is the motley assortment of detainees.Some were actually captured on an actual battlefield. For them, the POW model is appropriate. Their return should be negotiated between the US and their home country.

"These unlawful combatants didn't fulfill their side of the deal, why should we honor the rest of it?"

Oh?

So any person kidnapped without cause, transported blindfolded and bound to a prison around the world from their home, and held for years, away from their loved ones, guilty of nothing, suffering physical and pschological duress and abuse, even torture, and finally released years later, have made a deal with us?